[alberg30] Lectrasan MSD

[RABBIT649 at aol.com]

From: RABBIT649 at aol.com

Some would consider eutrophication a quite natural evolutionary process of 
which we humans are a natural part. Certainly ducks do not object to the 
gradual expansion of their habitat and, even as we are trying to prevent the 
formation of marsh in one area, we are artificially preserving it in another.
But I guess it's all a matter of balance. After all, "bears do it, bees do 
it" and they don't even macerate it and make it bacteriologically safe 
WITHOUT using chemicals, as the Lectrasan does. 
I guess I'm just questioning the impact. Is that proven in terms of numbers 
of boats in a given area?
Remember: WE are also a part of the ecology too and there's nothing 
ESSENTIALLY wrong with what the Lectrasan does.
Paul
Ashwagh
#23


In a message dated 9/2/99 2:00:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sunstone at idirect.com writes:

> From: sunstone <sunstone at idirect.com>
>  
>  Bob;
>  We sailed a 30 for years, #544, and she had a 20 gallon holding tank in
>  the keel which allowed for 10 days of normal usage for 2 people using
>  water conservation in the flush cycle.   We cruise for 3-4 weeks at a
>  stretch and pump out twice on average.
>  
>  Certainly the need to conserve water and to know how much or little one
>  can get away with in the flush is a learning curve but I stand by the
>  previous statement on no discharge.
>  
>  The problem lies with the excess nutrients in treated or untreated
>  sewage which in the Great Lakes helps to encourage eutriphication which
>  results in algae blooms and foul waters.   The problem is not dissimilar
>  to the Chesapeake experience.
>  
>  Certainly boats do not account for all of it, or even a significant
>  amount, but it is an incremental process, the reduction of pollution.
>  Besides, 10 or so boats in a smaller anchorage can have a real impact.
>  
>  At any rate it's no big deal up here and I would suggest in a few years
>  it won't be that big a deal in your community either as people adapt to
>  the changes.
>  
>  Good luck, the fellow with the keel holding tank pictures has a workable
>  system much like ours.
>  
>  John
>  
>  RABBIT649 at aol.com wrote:
>  > 
>  > From: RABBIT649 at aol.com
>  > 
>  > Yes, John, it's reasonable for weekend cruises, but 9-10 gallons is not
>  > enough for much longer.
>  > The Lectrasan does NOT dump, in your words, "raw sewage". After 
treatment, 
> it
>  > is bacteriologically clean and completely biodegradeable. Disallowing it 
> and
>  > going to "no discharge" is largely a "knee-jerk" reaction from people who
>  > won't study or don't understand the facts and figures. And if it results 
> in
>  > people dumping raw sewage anyway because they're up to their eyeballs in 
> it,
>  > it is counterproductive.
>  > Regards,
>  > Paul
>  > Ashwagh #23
>  > 
>  > In a message dated 9/1/99 9:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>  > sunstone at idirect.com writes:
>  > 
>  > > From: sunstone <sunstone at idirect.com>
>  > >
>  > >  Gee we've had holding tank, no discharge laws for years, seems 
> perfectly
>  > >  reasonable to me, in fact I can't believe that any place on earth 
would
>  > >  allow raw discharge.
>  > >
>  > >  Get after your legislators to require all marinas and yacht clubs to
>  > >  have pump out facilities, I mean you can't operate a restaurant 
without
>  > >  wash room facilities, apply the same principle.
>  > >
>  > >  The world will definitely be a better place for it.
>  > >
>  > >  John Birch, Sunstone KC-65
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  Robert E Johns wrote:
>  > >  >
>  > >  > From: Robert E Johns <bobjns at nais.com>
>  > >  >
>  > >  > >From: RABBIT649 at aol.com
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >Dear George,
>  > >  > >    I have a RARITAN Lectrasan somebody gave me that I havn't 
> installed
>  > > yet.
>  > >  > >It zaps the waste with about 50 amps for three minutes and is 
> supposed
>  > to
>  > >  > >convert it to be legal for discharge in some places. Do you know 
> where
>  > > and
>  > >  > >where not? I forgot what the guy told me.
>  > >  > >Paul,
>  > >  > >Ashwagh #23
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Paul,
>  > >  >
>  > >  > We installed a Lectrasan after we bought Wind Call in 1976. It 
> involved
>  > >  > rebuilding the head area including moving the panel inboard an inch 
> or
>  > two
>  > >  > and using two doors instead of three. We got rid of it a few years 
> ago
>  > > when
>  > >  > more and more places we cruise became no discharge areas. We 
> installed a
>  > 9
>  > >  > gallon holding tank in the space where the Lectrasan was, again 
> having to
>  > >  > rebuild the head. The 9 gallon size is too small, but I didn't want 
> to
>  > >  > install a holding tank under the forward berths or use a flexible 
> tank.
>  > We
>  > >  > end up causing more pollution than we ever did with the Lectrasan 
> because
>  > >  > many areas don't have pumpout stations and when we dump the tank, 
it 
> is
>  > >  > raw, though macerated, sewage. We have stopped the long cruises 
> because
>  > of
>  > >  > medical problems, but our cruising area was from Long Island Sound 
> north.
>  > >  > The most prominent place to go to no discharge is Block Island, and 
> they
>  > >  > really do enforce it, but more and more smaller places have gone no
>  > >  > discharge and it is obvious the the handwriting is on the wall. 
There 
> is
>  > > no
>  > >  > reasonable answer.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Regards,
>  > >  >         Bob Johns, Wind Call, #397

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS:  Get your ONElist news!
Join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here:
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter2 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 936265815.0